Talk:Stephen Barrett: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:40, 27 February 2006 editValjean (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers95,336 edits →Definition of quakery ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 19:33, 9 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk \| contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,176 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Skip to talk}}
	==Barrett's license to practice==
			{{Talk header\|noarchive=yes \|search=no}}
	Is there a source for the claim that Barrett isn't currently licensed to practice medicine? --] 03:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
			{{Homeopathy/Warning}}
	:Obviously we need a source. This is not the first time Ive heard this, so there may be somthing to it more than POV by the anon user, but without a source, it needs a source. ] 04:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
			{{Not a forum}}
	::I say we leave it for a week or so to allow someone to add a source, and then remove it if it does not have a source at that point. If it's true, it can always be added back whenever someone does present a source. --] 07:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
			{{Round in circles}}
	:::Actually, I may remember wrong, but I think Barrett had said that he didn't renew his membership in his psychiatric council-ma-bob thing... I need to figure out what I'm thinking of ] 08:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|blp=yes\|class=B\|listas=Barrett, Stephen\|
	::::According to the , under oath Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam. If this is verified, I think it should be part of this article. ] 17:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject Biography\|old-peer-review=yes}}
	:::The article you posted takes the text verbatim from www.healthfreedomlaw.com, the author of which doesn't provide a transcript of the trial. --] 18:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject Skepticism\|importance=low}}
	::::Is there a transcipt available? I can't find the article on healthfreedomlaw.com. It's kind of a sloppy site. Can you point me to the page where you saw this article verbatim? ] 18:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
			}}
			{{Notable Wikipedian\|Sbinfo\|Barrett, Stephen}}
			{{archives\|search=yes}}

			== External links modified ==
	::::Also, I just found this from :
	:::: 'At trial, while on the stand, Barrett had to admit that he not only gave up his license in 1994, but that he was, in fact, not a board-certified psychiatrist, because he had flunked the examination that was required to receive certification. More significantly, under intense cross-examination, Barrett admitted that he did not pass the neurological portion of the exam.'
	:::: ] 18:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	:::Scroll down the main page at www.healthfreedomlaw.com to "breaking news!!!". Chiroweb also quotes from www.healthfreedomlaw.com in that article. --] 19:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

			I have just modified {{plural:1\|one external link\|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	::::So what is the truth here? Did Barrett indeed fail his psychiatric board examinations as those articles claim he admitted on the stand? I don't want to post a lie to the article. But with several references now, does this become verifiable? Do courts often publish trial transcipts? Has Barrrett ever responded to these allegations about what he said on the stand? ] 20:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071103051137/http://new.thegoodwebguide.co.uk:80/index.php?rid=1772 to http://new.thegoodwebguide.co.uk/index.php?rid=1772
			*Added {{tlx\|dead link}} tag to http://www.health.gov/scipich/

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx\|Sourcecheck}}).

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}
	===Two different matters===
	Gentlemen, you're all mixing two very different matters together. This is confusing, so here they are:

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 02:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
	;1. Letting his license lapse when he retired.
	This is standard practice for MDs. It's expensive to keep one's license to practice active. One has to pay very expensive malpractice insurance, dues, continuing education, etc. He will always be an MD. That's his education.

			== Defamation ==
	*Early history:
	:During the mid-1970s, I began writing about what I found and gradually evolved into a medical writer and editor. As I did so, I gradually reduced my psychiatric work until 1993, when I retired so I could spend more time writing about my findings. The original committee, renamed Quackwatch in 1997, has evolved into an informal network of individuals who provide help when asked.

			Why nothing about Barrett’s failed defamation suit against chiropractor Tedd Koren? It is relevant to his work. ] (]) 04:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
	*
	:In 1993, I decided to devote my full energy to investigating and writing about quackery and inactivated my Pennsylvania license. Since 1999, there has been an organized attempt to destroy my reputation by falsely describing my status as "de-licensed"-a derogatory term that means having one's licensed revoked for misconduct. I have committed no misconduct. I retired in good standing and can reactivate my license by paying the renewal fee. But since I no longer see patients, there is no reason to do so. .

			== Psychiatric boards ==
	Tim Bolen's most blatant lie is the "de-licensed" claim. He has been confronted with it and yet continues to do it.

			that Barrett "failed his psychiatric boards.” Is there a credible source to substantiate that claim? ] (]) 04:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

			== Self-Sourced Content ==
	;2. Never being Board Certified.
	He has never claimed to be Board Certified. He was and is still an MD and a psychiatrist. Being "Board Certified" is nice, but far from all MDs, including psychiatrists, are Board Certified.

			Barrett appears to be the original source for many references which, according to Ronz via ] and ] violates several policies. A consistent editing policy seems necessary for both articles. Either interviews and articles are legitimate or they are not. Unless there's a WP:HYPOCRISY policy I missed? --] (]) 13:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

			== Discussions about the status of QW (and thus Barrett) here at Misplaced Pages ==
	;3. -- Stephen Barrett, M.D.
	*What got you interested in fighting quackery?
	*What promoted you to start the Quackwatch Web site?
	*What qualifies you to write on so many topics?
	*Do you yourself follow a healthy lifestyle?
	*What are your goals?
	*What is the status of your medical license?
	*What would you do if you were told you were terminally ill?
	*Additional information about me
	*Additional information about Quackwatch

			For some odd reason, existing discussions have not been announced here, which is a big violation of our usual practice. There are two major places where participation is encouraged:

			* ]
	;Just ask
			* ]
	If you have any other matters that need answering, just ask. The answers usually exist, and I know the people who can provide them. Keep in mind that Barrett, the ], etc. are open about their activities. They have nothing to hide. The information is there if you know where to look. Even participation on the Healthfraud Discussion List requires using ones real name.

			] (]) 16:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
	Regards,
	Paul -- ] 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

			== Rule 11 Sanctions in "Quackwatch" Libel Case ==
	==On Sources==
	There is no factual reson to doubt the documents authenticity. Court records are not always made available online by the court, and any transcript made available from a third party could just as easily be discounted for the same reasons, its a burdon of proof that is extreme, Misplaced Pages is not original research, it reports on what others are saying and lets the reader decide. ] 20:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

			I'm not sure if there's anything worth using here, but someone else may think so, so leaving it here. -- ] (]) 01:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
	:A trial transcript is not "original research." In fact, the guideline on reliable sources ] trial transcripts as credible primary sources. By contrast, a press release issued by one side in a contentious court dispute is ]. If a transcript is not available, and I can't imagine why it wouldn't be in this case, a neutral and uninvolved news article about the proceedings should be cited at the very least.
			:Probably not without more coverage. Applies to ] as well. --] (]) 02:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

	:It's hardly extreme to ask for a citation from a work that doesn't happen to be online; people cite printed material all the time here. ]! The clerk of courts of the civil division of the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas can be reached at (610) 782-3148. Ask for a transcript from case number 2002-C-1837 and I'm sure she'll be happy to help you out. --] 21:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

	::Getting a transcript costs money and time. I am curious, but not that much -- but perhaps the person who added the link would like to follow up with it. I've added a note to their talk page. ] 22:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

	=="critical is positive"==
	''"critical is positive" is your POV, please don't impose it on the article'' - I dont know about "imposing", your the one who is creating sections based on value judgement terms. Most articles dont do that. In any case, youve changed the word "positive" to the more neutral "Advocacy" which I can live with. --] 13:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Many other articles dealing with controversial subjects have separate sections for external links. The descriptions vary, but they do exist as a common practice. You are using the word "positive" in a different sense than was intended, which is an unfair trick. I used it in the sense normally used in such cases - links positively oriented towards the subject of the article. The other links - labeled critical - are obviously critical of the subject. I changed the word (to a more awkward one) to hopefully avoid an editing war. -- ] 17:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
	::The word "positive" can imply a value judgement (opposite = "negative"). There's no "trick", seems positivly obvious to me, unless your casting negative light on the matter for other reasons. --] 20:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yes, it ''can'' mean the opposite of ''negative,'' but I wrote "critical." They are simply descriptive words to identify the type of content. Some links are "positively" ''for'' Barrett, while the others are "critical" and ''against'' Barrett. My headings described quite accurately the two types of POV links. ''Accurate'' documentation is considered allowable.

	:::Bolen's libelous publications (for which he is soon to appear in court) are not considered to even be close to an attempt at accuracy. They are clearly prejudiced and inflammatory paid spin doctoring. He is running interference for his employers - Hulda Clark, among others. He doesn't hesitate to deceive by repeating claims and accusations he knows to be falsehood. He has been confronted with them, but refuses to change. He ''knows'' they are lies, but continues to repeat them. So far he hasn't presented any evidence for his false claims. If you know of any evidence (he isn't producing it), I'd like to see it.

	:::Here are some informative links about the libel situation:

	:::* - Stephen Barrett, MD
	:::* - Stephen Barrett, MD
	:::* - Peter Bowditch
	:::* - Terry Polevoy, MD

	:::Here's a picture of .
	:::-- ] 22:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

	==Axes to grind==
	You seem to have an ax to grind with Bolen. --] 04:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

	Ha! you can say that again. He has consistently libeled and attacked many of us, and without any proof at that. Here's just one of the most prominent of examples (I am named):

	*The Clark v. Barrett countersuit:

	The accusations against Barrett and some 30 others, myself included, is very long. Quackbusters consider the accusations to be fitting for a Mafia godfather:

	:Cross-Complainant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Cross-Defendants have engaged in, but not limited to, the following illegal conduct and acts prior to the time of the filing of this Cross-Complaint:

	::Mail Fraud; Wire Fraud; Perjury; Subornation of Perjury; Extortion; Stalking; Terrorist threats; Assault; Filing false police reports; Illegal lobbying; Illegal influence of foreign government officials and/or agencies; Trespass; Invasion of Privacy; Web site tampering; Internet Spam; Investigation without license; Violation of Civil Rights & Free Speech; Interference with Right of Free Speech and Association.

	That countersuit was conveniently withdrawn without ever coming to trial (but the accusations are still on the internet):

	Obviously having been accused of such crimes without a shred of evidence, and having the accusations published all over the internet, isn't a very pleasant experience, but then Bolen isn't interested in playing fair and has never claimed to be.

	*A follow-up "Malicious Prosecution" suit against Carlos Negrete, Hulda Clark's attorney, is pending:

	How would you feel if I accused you of committing Mail Fraud; Wire Fraud; Perjury; Subornation of Perjury; Extortion; Stalking; Terrorist threats; Assault; Filing false police reports; Illegal lobbying; Illegal influence of foreign government officials and/or agencies; Trespass; Invasion of Privacy; Web site tampering; Internet Spam; Investigation without license; Violation of Civil Rights & Free Speech; Interference with Right of Free Speech and Association, and many more crimes?

	That kind of lawsuit is a first class example of a SLAPP suit. Even on the face of it it's obvious they are trumped up charges, intended to provoke and intimidate, but not anywhere near the truth.

	Can you now understand why I "have an ax to grind" with him? Before he personally threatened me for the first time back in 1999 (or 2000), I had only criticized Hulda Clark for her dubious methods. She employed him to defend her, and since his favorite mode is the attack mode (by his own admission), he promptly emailed me with personal threats. Nice guy! (not).

	I'm just an ordinary PT in practice with my wife, also a PT. We're ordinary people with average incomes, two children, two dogs and three cats. I don't lie about people, threaten them, sue them, or otherwise engage in any devious activities. I do criticize quackery and fraud when I see it, and I can easily document it. Whatever I write can stand up in court. Bolen doesn't like that, and he knows I have enough stuff on him to win.

	I'd really like to hear you tell me how you would feel if accused of such a long list of crimes. -- ] 16:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Well, I guess my concern is that your edits about Bolen are being made in Good Faith, a central foundation of Misplaced Pages. You obviously have an ax to grind with him and since you wrote almost the entire article on ] (deleting almost everything that was there previously), it does raise the question that your edits were made in Good Faith to be neutral and fair. I found most of your edits of that article to emphasis negative stuff and not mention the positive (a "blackwash"). --] 20:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	::I think if you'll go to the time I made my edits and additions, I reformatted it, but without eliminating anything essential. There wasn't much there at the time.

	::When you objected I wrote the following, but never got any reply:
	:::Okay, what do you propose? I'm not sure what you're thinking about when you write "representative." Since I know Bolen's tactics and opinions quite well, and have been on the receiving end of his attacks, I've learned quite a bit about him, his websites, and his newsletters, which I receive. Maybe I'm too close to be able to do this properly, but my knowledge should be useful in some way.

	:::In what way are the quotes "negative?" They are his true opinions. I feared that if I were to write about his motives and opinions myself, I'd be accused of painting a negative picture, so I chose to give him the word.

	:::This article should describe the website and its purpose. Since it consists entirely of his newsletters, it's his opinions that become the subject matter for the article.

	:::Please come with some suggestions. I'm open to dialogue.-- ] 16:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

	::I seriously would like to know what you mean. -- ] 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Well back then I worked on it for over 45 mins and then pressed the wrong button and lost it all and havent had the heart to go back since. --] 00:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Ouch! What a bummer. I feel with you. -- ] 11:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	::::Ack! I concur on the horribility of it all, that's happened to me many times on forums. A couple times on here but not so much. Generally with faulty things like that it's good to fall back on notepad, but when nothing happens for a while we fall back on the more conveniant way until something jarring occurs. Generally it's good for the larger changes, which is why modifying things with smaller changes is good, among other reasons ] 08:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

	==What Barrett is trying to do==
	Barrett is a controversial character, and we have to make sure the article does not read like a promotional piece for him. (Nor, obviously, should it read like an indictment of his qualifications and motivations.) There are several ways we can do this, but I think we need to state the controversy up front, list his credentials and awards, etc., in a neutral way, and then have a candid and neutral discussion of the controversy. --] 20:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

	:There is a criticism section where such matters are already stated, with reference and links to very critical (and libelous) sites. What are you thinking of? --] 20:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
	::Barrett thinks that his opponents' credit history is useful information to disclose, I have yet to see an article he's written that starts with an open mind to "alternative" therapies, and he's prone to suggest that osteopaths are probably lesser counterparts to medical doctors. Let's be clear here - what he practices is advocacy, and he's being disingenious by claiming it's all about exposing fraud and quackery. --] 20:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::That's your opinion, and you are in your full right to have it. Naturally there are more sides to the question. Barrett does have strong viewpoints. Fortunately he's quite open about them, their background, their documentation, his sources, expenses, and funding (mostly his own pocket).
	:::To avoid an unpleasant editing war here (I'm sure we both have better ways to use our time....;-), let's discuss important (which can be single words at times....) edits. We both have our POV, we (myself included!) just need to make sure that edits don't degenerate into editorializing. That article certainly should include discussion of criticisms, but they should be documented. Conspiracy theories and libel can't be allowed (IOW, Tim Bolen is a lousy source). --] 21:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

	:Is the 'who watches the watchdogs' thing linked to? If not I'll locate a link to it, it was a good criticism of a couple articles. Even so, it doesn't really discount all of them. Any critiques Barret makes need to be confronted one by one. He does have a lot (time-consuming writing process eh...) so perhaps we can make a new page called 'barrett articles vs responses' or something along those lines? I actually mailed Barrett to invite him to come edit his wiki and stuff to be more accurate but he said he would prefer not to, which is okay I guess, since he's busy and he thinks it will just feed controversy and bring attention to guys like Bolen. ] 06:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

	::What are you referring to here - "Is the 'who watches the watchdogs' thing linked to?" Do you have a link to that? -- ] 12:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

	:::I downloaded it once to read, I must have deleted it though. Trying to locate a link to it now. It might also be 'Who watches the watchmen'. I'll keep googling. By the way, did you know about this guy? http://www.stephenbarrett.com/ Apparently there's also a wine critic by the name :) Should we make a disambig link? ] 20:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

	::::It would be appropriate if there was an article on him here at Misplaced Pages, otherwise unnecessary. -- ] 22:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

	==Definition of quakery==
	:Barrett broadly defines ''"quackery"'' as "anything involving overpromotion in the field of health"
	Regarding the above statement, is that what he says? Health-care is the most over-promoted industry there is. If over-promotion is his criteria, it's all quackery. -- ] 21:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
	:Here's the whole statement from the article:
	::Barrett broadly defines ''"quackery"'' as "anything involving overpromotion in the field of health," and he believes the word ''"fraud"'' should be "reserved only for situations in which deliberate deception is involved."
	:Try this: (1) Read the pages at those links, (2) understand them, (3) then discuss them. -- ] 22:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
	::You know, Barrett is being a little gentle in saying it has to be DELIBERATE deception. I honestly think that a lot of people out there in AltMed do believe in their pseudosciences and faith healing, and people should still be protected from them. In a lot of cases it's due to a fallicious ringmaster who knows, but in other times it can just be spontaneous misleading. It's pretty hard to find evidence that people know something is fake and they're marketing it, as they're usually very careful about it. ] 17:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::I don't know if he's being "gentle." He's basically saying that someone can be guilty of quackery even if they have the best of intentions, whereas they are guilty of fraud if they know that they're doing something wrong. You're right that it's impossible to know what motivations and knowledge people have when they make various claims, and that standard cuts all ways. I don't think this is the place to get into who should be protected against whom, except to note what Barrett thinks. --] 18:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

	::::This is why the distinction between "quackery" and "fraud" is so important. One can more safely and accurately accuse someone of practicing quackery, than of practicing fraud (unless one has proof of evil intent). Quackery is practiced every day by well-meaning people,and they should not be treated as common criminals with evil intent. Misguided, but not evil.

	::::That doesn't make the consequences of their actions any less dangerous, because they may still be the same deadly consequences for the victim. When Hulda Clark tells a real AIDS victim that she has healed their AIDS, they can then go home and infect others. It makes no difference to the victims if it's Hulda or someone who really believes her that makes that false claim, death can still be the result. Sticking to the charge of quackery is often the safest and most accurate course of action. -- ] 22:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:33, 9 February 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stephen Barrett article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Stephen Barrett. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Stephen Barrett at the Reference desk.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Sbinfo (talk · contribs) / Barrett, Stephen Barrett, Stephen

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stephen Barrett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071103051137/http://new.thegoodwebguide.co.uk:80/index.php?rid=1772 to http://new.thegoodwebguide.co.uk/index.php?rid=1772
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.health.gov/scipich/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Defamation

Why nothing about Barrett’s failed defamation suit against chiropractor Tedd Koren? It is relevant to his work. Nicmart (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Psychiatric boards

It is asserted that Barrett "failed his psychiatric boards.” Is there a credible source to substantiate that claim? Nicmart (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Self-Sourced Content

Barrett appears to be the original source for many references which, according to Ronz via Naveen Jain and Naveen Jain Talk violates several policies. A consistent editing policy seems necessary for both articles. Either interviews and articles are legitimate or they are not. Unless there's a WP:HYPOCRISY policy I missed? --Lawfulneutral (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussions about the status of QW (and thus Barrett) here at Misplaced Pages

For some odd reason, existing discussions have not been announced here, which is a big violation of our usual practice. There are two major places where participation is encouraged:

BullRangifer (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Rule 11 Sanctions in "Quackwatch" Libel Case

Rule 11 Sanctions in "Quackwatch" Libel Case I'm not sure if there's anything worth using here, but someone else may think so, so leaving it here. -- Valjean (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Probably not without more coverage. Applies to American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine as well. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Categories: